Módulo profesional 6: Ortodoncia

The research on transition theory and organizational socialization suggests that when an educator undergoes transition to a leadership position, such as from a classroom teacher to an assistant principal, the first year on the job is pivotal. The first year is the time when the new leader develops attitudes to match demands and expectations of the new position, and the repertoire of responses and skills acquired during that year will have significant influence on later behavior patterns, leadership capabilities, and overall future of that person as a leader (Ackerman Anderson & Anderson, 2010; Hartzell, 1990). The position of an elementary assistant principal in public school is not a well-defined entity and has received little attention in academic research. Transition from teaching into administration, and particularly into an elementary assistant principalship, is often

dictated by the leadership goals of those that chose the path of becoming an administrator in public education. However, multiple obstacles on that path hinder educators’ ability to reach those leadership goals. It is no longer sufficient to prepare the elementary assistant principals solely for the role of a disciplinarian in the school hierarchy, as the

demarcation line between the roles of principal and assistant principal blends, and the elementary assistant principals must develop skills of instructional leaders and be able to create the climate of success in their school (Best, 2016; Marshall & Hooley, 2006; Vick, 2011). Lack of relevant preparation and coordinated supports make that transition path challenging (Armstrong, 2012; Cohen, 2008; Hartzell, 1990; Marshall & Hooley, 2006; Tooms, Barnett, & Shoho, 2012). This study seeks to understand what professional development topics and practices can be identified as important for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals.

Overview

Chapter III provides a narrative structure for the research design and the methods used to conduct this study. This chapter presents the purpose of the study and research questions, the research design, a description of the population and sample, the criteria used for selection, a description of the panel size, an explanation of the data collection and data analysis process, instrument validation through field test, and, finally, it addresses the study limitations.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this Delphi study was to identify the most important professional development topics and practices for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals, as perceived by a panel of experts. An additional purpose was to identify strategies for implementing the most important practices for the preparation of teachers to become elementary assistant principals.

Research Questions

The following questions were selected to address the purpose of the study:

1. What professional development topics do experts identify as important for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals?

2. What practices do experts identify as important for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals?

3. How do the panel of experts rank the importance of these practices for preparing elementary assistant principals?

4. What strategies do the expert panel recommend for implementing the most important practices?

Research Design

The study used a non-experimental, descriptive research design. It applied a Delphi technique to find consensus of opinions among a panel of experts. Using the Delphi technique in a qualitative research design allows for obtaining descriptive data through a “philosophical orientation called phenomenology, which focuses on people’s experience from their perspective” (Roberts, 2010).

Hsu and Sanford (2007) characterize the Delphi technique as “a widely used and accepted method for achieving convergence of opinion concerning real-world knowledge solicited from experts within certain topics” (p.1). Yousuf (2007) suggests that the Delphi technique can be used in “situations where policies, plans, or ideas have to be based on informed judgement” (p.1). The Delphi technique is valuable in the education field because it allows educational experts to communicate effectively and identify trends and needs that relate to a specific area of education while building consensus as an essential component of any policy-making process (Rayens & Hahn, 2000; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Yousouf, 2007). According to research, the Delphi method works

especially well when the goal is to improve our understanding of problems, opportunities, solutions, or to develop forecast, which could lead to better planning and more effective managerial decision-making (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The Delphi technique in this study was used to gather data on kinds of topics and practices that experts identify as important for preparing and supporting teachers to become assistant principals.

Based on suggestions from Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1975), the Delphi technique is appropriate to use when research seeks to achieve these five objectives:

1. To determine or develop a range of possible program alternatives; 2. To expand or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to

different judgements;

3. To seek out information which may generate a consensus on the part of the respondent group;

4. To correlate informed judgements on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines, and;

5. To educate the respondent group as to the diversity and interrelated aspects of the topic. (p. 11)

Moreover, the Delphi technique is a fitting instrument for this study because it also meets the criteria that were described by Dalkey et al. (1972), as the Delphi technique is (a) a forecasting methodology that will generate expert opinion on a given subject that (b) allows the research to benefit from using informed subjective judgements and (c) permits the experts to play an active role in the development of the study.

In the Delphi technique, expert panel members respond to a series of

questionnaires anonymously and independently from other panel members, and the questionnaires are followed by feedback from the researcher (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Rowe, 1999; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Tersine & Riggs, 1976). Helmer, who is credited for developing the Delphi technique for the RAND Corporation in the 1940s, states that the Delphi technique is the simplest form of collecting expert opinion, as it

eliminates committee activity among the panel members and enforces anonymity (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The anonymity of participation in the expert panel and of the answers of each panel member prevent prominent participants that are common in any group process, from enforcing their opinion on other experts by means of intimidation, coercion, or manipulation, which reduces the halo effect and helps panelists provide carefully selected responses (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Dalkey, Rourke, Lewis, & Snyder, 1972; Sommerville, 2008). Another essential component of the Delphi process is the controlled feedback. Researchers agree that the feedback provided to each respondent after each round of questionnaires allows participants to reconsider their opinion in light of the knowledge collected in the previous rounds and supports the process of reaching consensus (Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Rayerns & Hahn, 2000; Yousuf, 2007). Research on Delphi indicates that the number of questionnaire rounds may vary, but minimum of three rounds is necessary to achieve a reasonable consensus of opinion among panelists

This study utilized the three-round Delphi model and used a Delphi panel of a minimum of 15 experts that participated in three rounds of questionnaires where the panelists initially identified important topics and practices for preparing and supporting teachers to become assistant principals, then rated the identified practices using a 6-point Likert Scale for their importance, and finally described the best methods for

implementing the most important practices for preparing teachers to become assistant principals.

Population

McMillan & Schumacher (2010) define population as the entire “group of

elements or cases, whether individuals, objects, or events, that conform to specific criteria and to which we intend to generalize the results of the research.” The population for this study included all elementary school principals in California. The characteristics of this population include direct involvement in formal coaching or mentoring of elementary assistant principals in California. In July 2018, California Department of Education (2018) reported 868 school districts with 5,873 elementary schools in the state. Each elementary school will typically have one principal; therefore, the number of principals in this study is 5,873.

Target Population

Roberts (2010) stated, “Ideally, an entire population would be used to gather information. However, this is usually not feasible as most groups of interest are either too large or are too scattered geographically” (p. 149). A target population is the entire set of individuals chosen from the overall population for which the study data are to be

used to make inferences (Creswell, 2014; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). The target population defines the population to which the findings of a survey are meant to be generalized. It is important that target population characteristics are clearly identified for the purposes of the research study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).

The target population for this study comprised of the California elementary school principals that have an assistant principal, particularly at the elementary schools located in the five counties - San Bernardino, Fresno, Tulare, Kern, and Sacramento. These five counties were purposefully selected also because between 2007 and 2017 these areas experienced a high number of retirements and documented shortages of public school administrators along with an increase in student enrollment, which raised the projected need for new administrators (Hill et al., 2016; Jackson, 2007; Scott, 2011; White, Fong, & Makkonen, 2010).

Sample

Researchers use a sample from a desired population, as it is not feasible to conduct a study of an entire population (Patton, 2015). A sample is the group of subjects from whom the data are collected (McMillian & Schumacher, 2010). Sampling is the process that researchers utilize for selecting a group of people from which to sample from the entire target population.

To create the sample for this study, a purposeful sampling method was used. This research sought to collect expertise of the panelists regarding the most important topics and practices for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals and, additionally, in regard to the best methods for implementing the most important practices for the preparation of teachers on their path to becoming elementary assistant principals.

The common characteristic in a Delphi study is the panel members’ expertise; therefore, selection of the expert panel is crucial for a study’s success (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2007; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Yousouf, 2007).

The sample in this study had to be a panel of experts selected for their ability to answer research questions and for being informed about the topic of interest (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). For this particular study, the criteria were developed in order to ensure the expertise of the Delphi panel (see Table 1). Research on Delphi technique determined that there is no optimal size for a panel; however, having a sufficient number of representative experts is found to be more important (Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Sommerville, 2008; Weatherman & Swenson, 1974). A representative panel of 15 experts is stated to be adequate to yield sufficient results in heterogenous or homogenous sample, and therefore the minimum panel size was set at 15 experts (Delbecq et al., 1975; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The final number of experts participating throughout the entire study was 29.

The researcher contacted district assistant superintendents overseeing elementary schools in the selected California counties seeking support in identifying the panelists matching the criteria necessary for this study. Additionally, participants were solicited through direct correspondence with the administrative credential program supervisors. The set of characteristics used to select the participants is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Criteria for inclusion in the Delphi Study

Principals Administrative Credential Program Supervisors

(at university/county programs or anointed by district offices to work with the university/ county program)

Valid California Administrative Credential

Valid California Administrative Credential

Minimum three years of elementary principalship

Minimum three years of administrative credential program supervision work Experience in teaching administrative credential coursework

Formal relationship with elementary assistant principals in a

coaching/support role

Formal relationship with administrative credential program participants in a coaching/support role

Completed formal training in

mentoring Completed formal training in mentoring Expressed interest in participating in all

three rounds of the Delphi study Expressed interest in participating in all three rounds of the Delphi study Master’s Degree or higher Master’s Degree or higher

When Brandman Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was gained, the researcher contacted the recommended panelists by phone or email to invite them to participate in the study. In this invitation, potential participants were provided with a letter of informed consent, the participants safeguards, information regarding the purpose of the study, directions for accessing the Google Forms, the timeline of the study, and the field test form that with the request to the panelists to complete demographic information (see Appendices A, B, and C).

Instrumentation

Consistent with the theory on Delphi technique, the instrument used in this study collected the most reliable consensus of a group of experts in an electronic format of a three-round survey process (Donohoe, Stellefson, & Tennant, 2012; Skumolski, Hartman,

with the traditional pen-and-pencil approach to data collection, the e-Delphi offers

unparalleled convenience, time and cost savings, and data management advantages.” This study utilized electronic Google Forms as a survey instrument for collecting data, which allowed the researcher to provide efficient and secure surveys along with the secure feedback to the participants and researcher (Donohoe, Stellefson, & Tennant, 2012; Skumolski et al., 2007).

In the first questionnaire, the expert panelists received two open-ended questions that asked panelists to name the most important professional development topics and practices for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals.

The results from this round were aggregated and used to construct the round two survey questions, where participants were asked to rank the importance of each item in the list of professional development topics and in the list of practices using a Likert scale and also to provide rationale for their decisions (Rayens & Hahn, 2000; Skumolski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007; Yousouf, 2007).

Responses to the questionnaire from the second round were used to construct the final instrument for round three. Using this instrument, the expert panel participants were asked to describe the best methods for implementing the most important professional development topics and practices for preparing teachers to become elementary assistant principals. If sufficient consensus was not yet reached as a result of the third round, a fourth and final round of surveys would be implemented (Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Okoli & Pawlowski, 2007; Yousuf, 2007). Following the final round, the researcher verified, generalized, and documented the results, and then reported these in the form of a doctoral dissertation (Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Skulmoski et al., 2007).

Instrument Field Tests/Validity

As indicated in the studies on the Delphi technique, an instrument or the persons used to collect data might affect the results (Dodge & Clark, 1977; Hallowell, 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 2012; Sommerville, 2008). To increase the reliability and validity of the survey instruments, prior to the first round of questioning, a field test in the same format as described in the research design was administered to three experts. These experts met the same criteria as the purposeful sampling for this research. The researcher gathered feedback about the structure and language in the proposed survey questions, and the instrumentation was augmented based on the recommendations from the field test participants.

Another way to increase the validity of a qualitative research design is by finding “agreement on descriptive data” that was collected on the topic of study by multiple researchers (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Thus, the validity of the presented study was supported by a literature matrix that was constructed in the process of an extensive literature review. Simultaneously, content validity was established through a thorough literature review in Chapter II supported by the literature matrix.

Data Collection

As suggested by Day and Bobeva (2005), the Delphi model is comprised of three stages: exploration, distillation, and utilization. In the exploration stage, the researcher establishes criteria for selection of the panel, designs the data collection and analysis instruments, and pilots the field study. During distillation, the second stage, surveys are administered, and data collected through a number of Delphi rounds to see if the expert panelists have reached consensus. Finally, the third stage, utilization, includes analysis of

the Delphi study results, dissemination of the final report of the study, and utilization of the experience from the conducted Delphi study (Day & Bobeva, 2005).

The Delphi technique is used to find a group consensus among an anonymous group of experts and avoid the challenges of face-to-face focus groups (Hallowell, 2009; Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Rowe & Wright, 1999; Sommerville, 2008; Yousuf, 2007). To ensure that the requirements of Brandman University IRB were met and to provide the panelists with the safeguards, the following conditions were established in order to ensure anonymity of the participants: the participants were not aware of the identities of the other panelists and responses from the panelists were not labeled with a credit to a specific person.

The researcher contacted district superintendents and county-level educational leaders seeking permission to identify the panelists matching the criteria necessary for this study. With the approval of the district administrators and county leaders, the researcher distributed through emails and electronic newsletters the invitation to

participate in the study (see Appendix A). Participation on the panel was limited to only those that met the criteria. When at least five participants from each category were identified, the researcher sent an email to introduce the purpose and processes of the study and to request consent for participation. The email also outlined confidentiality procedures and the use of responses upon conclusion of the study. When informed consent was confirmed by receipt of a signed form (see Appendix B), panelists were sent an electronic link to access the Round One of the surveys (see Appendix C). This

instructions on how to complete the survey, relevant definitions and terms, and a deadline for survey completion. This information was included in each round of the survey.

For this study, three rounds of surveys were conducted. After the approval of the Brandman University IRB, the data was collected according to the proposed process (see Table 2).

Table 2

Delphi Study Schedule

Round Description of Activity Timeline

Prior to Round 1

Email to provide informed consent, timeline for the study, expectations for participation, and a test form using Google Forms

April 1 - April 7, 2019

Round 1 Email with description of study’s purpose, participation expectations, directions for accessing Round 1 input Google form, examples of responses (for purpose of

illustration)

April 8 - April 18, 2019

Round 2

Email with directions for completing the Round 2 input Google Form for ranking the strategies as having the most influence identified in

Round 1

April 20 - April 30, 2019

Round 3

Email with directions for completing Round 3 Input Google Form, directions for keeping or changing individual rankings provided in Round 2, provide each expert the median response of all participants to each Round 2 item, provide experts opportunity to make additional comments about any item from the rankings, phone interview with